McDonald v. Finaly Resources, LLC

United States District Court, W.D. Texas, Waco Division

June 29, 2017

CAMERON MCDONALD, Plaintiff,v.FINALY RESOURCES, LLC, Defendant.

ORDER

ROBERT
PITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before
the Court is Defendant Finaly Resources, LLC's Motion for
Summary Judgment. (Dkt. 21). Plaintiff Cameron McDonald
initially filed this case in Robertson County District Court
on July 7, 2016, alleging that Defendant Finaly Resources
negligently operated the oil well where he was working,
causing the well to explode and causing him severe bodily
injury. Defendant removed the case to this Court on August 1,
2016. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge
Jeffrey C. Manske for a Report and Recommendation on the
merits pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and Rules 1(h)
and 4(b) of Appendix C of the Local Rules of the United
States District Court for the Western District of Texas. On
March 23, 2017, Defendant filed a motion for summary
judgment, arguing that, as a property owner, it could not be
held liable for the personal injury of a contractor or
subcontractor's employee under Chapter 95 of the Texas
Civil Practice and Remedies Code. In the alternative,
Defendant argued that it could not be held liable under Texas
common law. Pursuant to Local Rule CV-7(e)(2),
Plaintiff's response was due April 6, 2017. No response
was filed.

On May
12, 2017, Magistrate Judge Manske filed a Report and
Recommendation, (Dkt. 23), recommending that this Court grant
Defendant's motion. Judge Manske concluded that under
either Chapter 95 or the Texas common law, in order for
Defendant to be liable, Plaintiff must demonstrate that
Defendant exercised control over Plaintiff's work. After
reviewing the evidence, including Plaintiff's answer to
one of Defendant's requests for admission in which he
admits that “J Bar Services, ” the contractor
hired by Finaly Resources, “controlled the details of
[Plaintiff's] work, ” (Mot. Summ. J., Dkt. 21-1,
Ex. 3 at 3), and Plaintiff's deposition testimony,
(Id., Ex. 4 at 33-34), Judge Manske concluded that
the undisputed evidence demonstrated that Defendant did not
control Plaintiff's work. The Report and Recommendation
informed the parties that they had fourteen days to file
objections to the proposed findings and legal conclusions.

On May
26, 2017, Plaintiff filed a document entitled
“Objections to Report.” (Dkt. 24). The filing
notes that the deadline for filing dispositive motions in the
case is October 2, 2017, and that Defendant's motion was
well in advance of both the dispositive motions and discovery
deadlines. Plaintiff states that he has not completed
discovery and requests that the Court provide an additional
sixty days to conduct additional discovery. Specifically, he
states that has recently served requests for production and
has requested deposition dates for Defendant's
representation. Plaintiff's objections contain no
argument regarding the factual or legal conclusions in Judge
Manske's Report and Recommendation, nor do they address
or explain why Plaintiff did not respond to Defendant's
motion within the fourteen-day deadline provided by the local
rules.

Defendant
soon afterward filed a response to Plaintiff's
objections, arguing that new arguments and evidence could not
be raised in an objection to a Magistrate Judge's Report
and Recommendation and that Plaintiff has not filed
“specific written objections” to the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendations, as required by
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).

Because
Plaintiff requests that the Court wait sixty days before it
rules on Defendant's motion, the Court will treat
Plaintiff's “Objections” as a motion for
extension of time to file an objection. Fed.R.Civ.P. 7(b)(1)
(“A request for a court order must be made by
motion.”). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
6, the Court may extend time “for good cause”
when the request is made before the original time expires.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)(1)(A). Here, Plaintiff filed the
“Objections, ” which included the request for an
additional sixty days to complete discovery, on the same day
his objections were due, thus the Court may extend the
deadline so long as it finds that the request is made
“for good cause.”

Unfortunately,
the Court finds that Plaintiff has no good cause in seeking
an extension of time to object to the Magistrate Judge's
Report and Recommendation. As the Court previously noted,
Plaintiff failed to timely respond to Defendant's motion
for summary judgment. Since doing so, Plaintiff has offered
no excuse for that failure. Even if Plaintiff did not feel he
could adequately respond to the motion within the time
provided by the local rules because discovery was not yet
completed, he could have filed a motion to extend the
response deadline until after the discovery deadline in the
case or requested that the Court defer consideration of the
motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). He did not. Judge
Manske properly considered Defendant's motion several
weeks after it was filed. By asking the Court for time to
seek additional discovery and respond to Defendant's
motion afterward, Plaintiff essentially asks this Court to
render the time Judge Manske spent considering the motion
wasted.

Further,
even if the Court were to allow the late filing of an
objection in this case, it appears likely that it would be
futile. First, it is difficult to imagine that, where
Plaintiff's deposition and admissions strongly support a
factual finding that Plaintiff was not under Defendant's
control at the time of the explosion, that the evidence
Plaintiff seeks from Defendants would contradict that fiding.
Second, even if it did, it is unclear that it would be
appropriate for the Court to consider such evidence where it
was not presented to the magistrate judge. As the Fifth
Circuit has explained, this Court has discretion in deciding
whether to accept new evidence not presented before a
magistrate judge. Freeman v. Cty. of Bexar, 142 F.3d
848, 851 (5th Cir. 1998). It also explained, however, that
like in situations where the district court is reconsidering
its own findings, “[t]hat discretion . . . is not
limitless.” Id. at 852 (Lavespere v.
Niagara Mach. & Tool Works, Inc., 910 F.2d 174 (5th
Cir. 1990)).

In any case in which a party seeks to upset a summary
judgment on the basis of evidence she failed to introduce on
time, two important judicial imperatives clash: the need to
bring litigation to an end and the need to render just
decisions on the basis of all the facts. The task of the
district court in such a case is to strike the proper balance
between these competing interests. In order to do this, the
court should consider, among other things, the reasons for
the moving party's default, the importance of the omitted
evidence to the moving party's case, whether the evidence
was available to the non-movant before she responded to the
summary judgment motion, and the likelihood that the
nonmoving party will suffer unfair prejudice if the case is
reopened.

Id. at 852-53 (Lavespere v. Niagara Mach. &
Tool Works, Inc.,910 F.2d 174 (5th Cir. 1990)).
Applying that standard to what the Court presently knows of
the situation, it would be unlikely that the Court would
exercise its discretion to consider newly submitted evidence.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that Plaintiffs Motion for
Extension of Time to File Objections to the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 24) be DENIED.

Further,
having fully reviewed the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendations, the relevant case law, and the record in
this case, the Court finds that it should be adopted for the
reasons stated therein. The Court therefore ORDERS that the
Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate
Judge (Dkt. 23) is APPROVED AND ACCEPTED.

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.